Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31410067›Full record

ArticleClinical epidemiology2019

Bisphosphonates and primary breast cancer risk: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis involving 963,995 women.

Yupeng Liu, Xiaosan Zhang, Hongru Sun, Shu Zhao, Yuxue Zhang, Dapeng Li, Qingyuan Zhang, Yashuang Zhao

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Cancer Progress and Priorities: Breast Cancer.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2021
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yupeng LiuDepartment of Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Management, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou 325035, People's Republic of China.
Xiaosan ZhangDepartment of Internal Medicine, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou 450008, People's Republic of China.
Hongru SunDepartment of Epidemiology, Public Health School of Harbin Medical University, Harbin 150081, People's Republic of China.
Shu ZhaoDepartment of Medical Oncology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Heilongjiang Cancer Hospital, Harbin 150081, People's Republic of China.
Yuxue ZhangDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Public Health School of Harbin Medical University, Harbin 150081, People's Republic of China.
Dapeng LiDepartment of Epidemiology, Public Health School of Harbin Medical University, Harbin 150081, People's Republic of China.
Qingyuan ZhangDepartment of Medical Oncology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Heilongjiang Cancer Hospital, Harbin 150081, People's Republic of China.
Yashuang ZhaoDepartment of Epidemiology, Public Health School of Harbin Medical University, Harbin 150081, People's Republic of China.
Harbin Medical University · CNZhengzhou University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importancePrevention of primary breast cancer (BCa) in women is of great public health importance. The existing results from observational epidemiologic studies focused on the association between bisphosphonates and primary BCa risk have been inconsistent.

objectiveTo update this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effect of bisphosphonates on primary BCa risk. DATA SOURCES: We comprehensively searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane libraries, ProQuest, and Web of Science through June 25, 2018 for relevant studies. STUDY SELECTION: Epidemiological studies that assessed the effect of bisphosphonates on the risk of primary BCa in women. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We reported this meta-analysis according to the PRISMA guidelines. Available multivariable-adjusted effect estimates and corresponding 95% CIs were pooled with a random-effects model. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The prespecified main outcome was the risk of primary BCa.

resultsIn total, five cohort studies involving 657,558 women and 12,991 primary BCa patients, three population-based case-control studies involving 54,701 primary BCa cases and 237,962 healthy controls and two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 13,774 women and 165 primary BCa patients were included in this meta-analysis. Bisphosphonates were associated with a 12% decreased risk of primary BCa (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.83-0.94). However, when we analyzed study designs separately, the pooled results from observational studies were inconsistent with that from RCTs. The observed association of primary BCa risk with long-term use (≥1 year) of bisphosphonates seemed to be more robust and stronger than that of short-term use (<1 year) (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.66-0.84; and 0.90; 95% CI, 0.84-0.97; respectively).

conclusionThis meta-analysis adds to the body of evidence for an association between bisphosphonates and a significantly decreased risk of primary BCa. However, future large-scale RCTs are required to validate this concern.

Indexed as

bisphosphonatesmeta-analysisprimary breast cancer risk

Identifiers

PMID31410067
PMCPMC6645691
OpenAlexW2960417306

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.